INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section allows for longer periods of authorization with the signature of the Attorney General or Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
SECTION WORDING
185(2) An application for an authorization may be accompanied by an application, personally signed by the Attorney General of the province in which the application for the authorization is made or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if the application for the authorization is made by him or on his behalf, to substitute for the period mentioned in subsection 196(1) such longer period not exceeding three years as is set out in the application.
EXPLANATION
Section 185(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the authorization to intercept private communications. It allows for a longer period of interception not exceeding three years as set out in the application if personally signed by the Attorney General of the province or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The interception of private communications is a serious violation of privacy and a fundamental right of citizens. However, there are instances where the interception of private communications is necessary to prevent and investigate serious criminal activities such as terrorism or organized crime. As such, the Canadian government has provided legal provisions that allow for the interception of private communications but with strict conditions. Section 185(2) is one such provision that allows for a longer period of interception not exceeding three years than mentioned in subsection 196(1). This provision permits the Attorney General of the province or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to personally sign an application for an authorization that substitutes for the period mentioned in section 196(1). The application must have a valid reason for an extension and must not exceed three years. The provision ensures that there is proper oversight and accountability in the interception of private communications. It also highlights the fact that any interception of private communications must be done with utmost caution and only in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary. This provision provides a balance between privacy rights and the necessity to maintain public safety and security.
COMMENTARY
Section 185(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada relates to the authorization for wiretap or intercepts, allowing Canadian law enforcement agencies to intercept private communication, such as phone conversations or emails, when investigating certain criminal activities. This section of the Criminal Code allows the Attorney General or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to apply for an authorization to prolong the length of time for which a wiretap or intercept can be conducted. In essence, this section of the Criminal Code allows government officials to extend the time period for which a wiretap can be conducted beyond the initial 60-day limit set by subsection 196(1). However, it is not a blanket authorization, as it requires a specific signed application and justification from an authorized individual, such as the Attorney General or Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This provision aims to strike a balance between the government's need to investigate crimes effectively and the rights to privacy and freedom of speech of Canadian citizens. The decision to authorize wiretaps and intercepts should not be taken lightly, as they infringe on fundamental Charter-protected rights, such as the right to privacy under section 8 and the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b). The fact that the application must be personally signed by the Attorney General of the province or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness indicates that the authorization process is taken seriously and that it must be based on reasonable grounds and sufficient information of the investigating agency's objectives. The provision also sets a clear limit of three years on the authorized interception period, striking a balance between the need to investigate particular crimes and the desire to avoid unreasonable or extended intrusions into people's lives and activities. This provision, therefore, highlights the importance of ensuring that wiretap or intercepts are only carried out under very strict conditions and with a reasonable justification for their use. In summary, Section 185(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada offers a degree of flexibility for the Canadian government to conduct wiretaps and intercepts under specific and justifiable circumstances. It also highlights the responsibility of authorized officials and agencies to protect the right to privacy of citizens while balancing it with the need to investigate and prevent serious criminal activities. Consequently, the provision ensures that wiretap and intercept activities remain critical tools for law enforcement agencies while always ensuring that the rights of Canadian citizens are maintained and respected.
STRATEGY
Section 185(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the authority for law enforcement agencies to seek authorization from the courts to intercept private communications. The process requires an application to be made in accordance with the Criminal Code and be accompanied by an application personally signed by the Attorney General of the province or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This authorization enables law enforcement to gather evidence of criminal activity and to ensure the safety of the public. Strategic considerations that need to be taken into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code include the following: 1. Privacy rights: There is a delicate balance between protecting the individual's right to privacy and the public's safety. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that they do not infringe on privacy rights when seeking authorization to intercept private communications. 2. Accuracy: Authorization to intercept private communication can have serious consequences for an individual or organization. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that they have accurate information and evidence to support their application. 3. Necessity: Authorization to intercept private communication is only granted when it is necessary to investigate criminal activities. Law enforcement agencies must demonstrate that there are no other alternative investigative methods that are less intrusive. 4. Timeliness: The authorization process must be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that the information gathered is relevant and useful. Strategies that could be employed to deal with this section of the Criminal Code include the following: 1. Collaboration: Law enforcement agencies can work collaboratively with other agencies to gather additional information to ensure that the application is accurate and supported by evidence. 2. Training: Law enforcement agencies can provide ongoing training to officers ensuring that they understand the requirements of Section 185(2) of the Criminal Code and are equipped to make accurate and supported applications. 3. Technology: Law enforcement agencies can invest in technology that facilitates the gathering of evidence in a manner that is less intrusive. 4. Public awareness: Law enforcement agencies can engage with the public to raise awareness of the importance of Section 185(2) of the Criminal Code and how it applies to the enforcement of the law. In conclusion, dealing with Section 185(2) of the Criminal Code requires strategic considerations to balance privacy rights with the need to investigate criminal activities and protect the public. Collaborative efforts and the use of technology can facilitate the accuracy and timeliness of application, while ongoing training and public awareness are crucial to ensure that law enforcement agencies understand their responsibilities and the importance of protecting privacy rights when seeking authorization to intercept private communication.